E 

83. 836 

E93s 


EVEREH 


SPEECH  OF  HORACE 
EVEREH,  OF  VERMONT 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 


SPEECH 


HORACE    ETERETT, 


O  F    V  E  R  M  O  N  T 


iir.i.ivJ.iiEn 


!N    THE   HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES,    IN   COMMITTEE    OF   THE  AVHOI.F, 


THE  INDIAN  ANNUITY  BILL, 


Friday,  JiiNe  3,  1836. 


\VASHlNGTON: 

NATIONAL    INTELLIGENCLR    OFFICE. 
1836. 


SPEECH. 


Mr.  EVERETT  said,  lie  had  not  expected  to  address  the  House  on  any 
subject  connected  with  our  Indian  relations  until  a  few  days  ;igo.  The  in- 
quiry into  the  causes  of  the  Indian  hostiUties  had  been  l^rought  before  the 
(Jommittee  on  Indian  Affairs,  and  the  papers  relating  to  it  liad  been  referred 
to  him  for  examination.  He  had  Jntended  before  the  close  of  the  session  to 
present  his  views  in  the  shape  of  a  report.  When,  however,  this  aniendment 
was  adopted  in  that  committee — an  amendment  placing  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Executive  more  than  a  million  of  dollars,  for  (he  removal  of  the  whole 
Creek  nation  by  force — in  violation  of  an  existing  treaty, — he  had  felt  him- 
self compelled  to  change  his  purpose,  and  to  present  his  views  to  the  House 
whenever  that  amendment  should  be  considered.  Should  that  pass,  a  re|)ort 
Wiiidd  be  to  but  little  purpose. 

/J4e  regretted  tiiat  this  extraordinary  appropriation  should  have  been  at- 
tached to  an  ordinary  appropriation  bill.  It  placed  liim  in  the  dilemma  of 
being  charged  with  obstructing  the  passage,  of  the  bill,  of  the  urgency  of 
which  no  one  was  more  sensible  than  himself;\or  with  the  responsibility  of 
permitting  a  measure  to  pass  in  silence,  whicli^iu  his  conscience,  he  believed 
repugnant  to  our  most  sacred  obligations,  and  of  the  most  hazardous  tenden- 
cy. He  had  desired  that  this  appropriation  should  have  been  reported  in  a 
separate  bill.  Had  it  been  so,  this  bill  would  have  passed  as  soon  as  it  was 
reported,  and  all  delay  would  have  been  avoided.  He  did  not,  therefore, 
consider  himself  responsible  for  the  delay.  This  was  not  the  first  time  that 
important  measures  had  been  attempted  to  be  carried  through  on  the  back 
of  a  general  appropriation  bill.  The  House  was  sufficiently  forev-arned  of 
the  consequences.  The  blame  would  rest  on  liiose  who  first  interposed  the 
obstacle.  Mr.  E.  said,  th.e  country  being  in  fact  in  a  state  of  war,  without 
stopping  to  inquire  by  whose  fault  we  had  become  involved  in  it,  he  had 
voted  for  every  appropriation  asked  for  defence — and  as  soon  as  it  was 
asked.  But  the  present  question  relates  to  the  future — and  to  consequences 
which  demand  that  it  should  not  pass  without  investigation. 

iVIr.  Everett  requested  the  Clerk  to  read  the  twelfth  article  of  the  Creek 
tr^ty  of  the  24th  of  March,  1832. 
(*'  Art.  12.  The  United  States  are  desirous  that  the  Creeks  should  remove 
to  the  country  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  join  their  countrymen  there;  and 
for  this  purpose,  it  is  agreed,  that,  as  fast  as  the  Creeks  are  prepared  to  emi- 
grate, they  shall  be  removed  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States,  and  shall 
receive  subsistence  while  upon  the  journey,  and  lor  one  year  after  tiieir  arri- 
val at  their  new  homes:  Provided,  however.  That  this  article  shall  nut  be  con- 
strued so  as  to  compel  any  Creek  Indian  to  emigrate,  but  they  shall  be  free 
to  go  or  stay,  as  they  please.") 

This,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  obligation  we  have  assumed;  this  is  the  right 
we  have  guarantied  to  every  Creek  Indian — to  go  or  sini/,  as  lie  pleases. 
To  render  this  right  of  value,  to  enable  the  Creeks  to  subsist  themselves  where 
they  were,  if  they  chose  to  remain,  the  treaty  secured  to  ninety  principal 
chiefs,  each,  640  acres  of  land,  and  to  every  other  head  of  a   Creek  family 


320  acres.  These  reservations  are  their  homes,  on  which  they  are  entitled 
to  remain.     But  from  these,  it  is  now  proposed  to  remove  them  by  force. 

The  amendment  proposes  to  remove  21,000  Creeks;  that  is  the  estimated 
number  of  the  whole  nation.  It  does  not,  in  terms,  propose  to  remove  them 
by  force;  that  purpose  is,  however,  avowed  explicitly  in  the  letter  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  to  the  committee,  asking  for  the  appropriation;  and  if  the  ap- 
propriation is  granted,  the  Executive  will  consider  himself  authorized  to  use 
it,  and  will  use  it  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  asked.  This  letter  is  dated 
on  the  19th  of  May,  and  states:  "  The  state  of  affairs  among  the  Creek  In- 
"  dians  in  Alabama  has  induced  the  President  to  direct  the  necessary  meas- 
"  ures  to  be  taken  for  their  removal.  Heretofore,  the  instructions  have  been 
"  in  conformity  with  the  treaty — to  remove  them  as  they  were  voluntarily 
"  prepared  to  go.  But  actual  hostilities  have  commenced,  and  it  is  essential 
"  to  their  existence,  as  well  as  to  the  safety  of  the  settlements  in  contact  with 
"  them,  that  they  should  be  established  in  their  country  west  of  the  Missis- 
"  sippi,  without  delay.  The  right  to  remove  them  by  force,  if  necessary,  re- 
"  suits  from  the  attitude  in  which  they  have  placed  themselves,  by  the  com- 
"  mencement  of  hostilities,"  &-c. 

Here,  then,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  our  treaty  obligation  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  power  claimed  on  the  other.  On  what  ground  is  it  claimed?  It  can  be 
claimed  only  on  the  ground  that  the  treaty  is  dissolved  by  a  war  on  the  part 
of  the  Creek  nation.  An  act  of  hostility  by  an  individual,  or  one  of  the 
bands  of  the  tribe,  would  not  have  that  effect.  No,  sir;  it  must  be  a  war  be- 
tween the  Creek  nation  and  the  United  States;  that  only  would  dissolve  the 
obligation  of  the  treaty;  and  before  this  House  sanctions  the  exercise  of  this 
high  power — this  war  power,  of  removing  the  whole  Creek  nation  by  force — 
it  should  be  satisfied  that  the  Creek  nation  has  made  war  upon  us,  as  a  na- 
tional act.  On  what  evidence  is  this  House  called  upon  to  act?  On  a  letter 
from  the  Secretary  of  War  to  a  committee,  stating  that  actual  hostilities  have 
commenced,  unaccompanied  by  any  evidence  of  the  character  or  extent  of 
those  hostilities.  It  gives  us  no  facts,  on  which  his  declaration  is  founded,  to 
enable  tlie  House  to  judge  if  the  right  to  remove  the  Creeks  by  force  is  justi- 
fiable. Are  we  to  act  on  this  declaration?  Are  we  to  collect  our  facts  from 
newspapers,  private  letters,  or  rumors?  and  if  we  should,  what  do  they  all 
amount  to?  From  no  source,  that  can  be  relied  on,  have  I  sufficient  evi- 
dence to  believe  that,  at  the  date  of  this  letter,  any  white  man  had  seen 
twenty-five  Creeks  embodied  in  arms.  True,  this  is  no  evidence  that 
more  have  not  been  in  arms.  But  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  it  should 
turn  out  that  the  whole  number  was  then  less  than  two  hundred  and  fifty. 

There  is,  however,  some  negative  testimony.  I  will  refer  the  commit- 
tee to  a  semi-ofiicial  publication  in  the  Globe,  of  the  30th  of  May.  It 
states  that  "  Colonel  Hogan  wrote,  on  the  24i.h  of  April,  that  there  was  no 
"  more  disposition  among  the  Creeks  of  the  upper  towns  for  hostilities  than 
"  there  was  among  the  citizens  of  Washington,  and  that  he  did  not  believe 
•'  there  was  any  such  disposition  among  the  Creeks  of  the  lower  towns." 
This  letter  was  received  here  on  the  5th,  and  "  on  that  day  Governor  Clay 
"  was  again  informed,  that,  should  the  Indians  medifate  hostilities,  any  force 
•'  he  might  find  necessary  to  call  out  for  the  protection  of  the  inhabitants 
"  would  be  received  into  the  service  of  the  United  States.  The  same  in- 
"  formation  and  the  same  authority  was  given  to  Governor  Schley,  on  the 
"  13th  of  May."  This  is  the  account  of  the  Indian  hostilities,  as  published 
on  the  30th  of  May.  The  orders  to  the  Governors  of  Alabama  and  Georgia 
do  not  refer  to  actual  hostilities,  but  to  meditated  hosuWues.  \ 


But,  sir,  if  a  state  of  war  exists,  why  has  no  communication  of  the  fact  been 
made  by  the  President?  I  do  not  go  the  length  of  saying  there  should  be  no 
communication  between  the  heads  of  the  Departments  and  the  committees  of 
this  House.  In  matters  of  minor  consequence,  convenience  requires  it.  But, 
sir,  on  questions  involving  a  change  of  our  relations  with  nations  with  whom 
we  have  treaties — on  questions  of  peace  and  war — I  hold  that  a  head  of  De- 
partment and  committees  of  the  House  are  not  the  proper  organs  of  commu- 
nication between  the  Executive  and  Congress.  Such  communication  should 
be  made  by  the  President,  and  to  both  Houses,  to  whom  it  appertains  to  take 
order  thereon.  Measures  new  and  important  are  not  to  be  sprung  upon  the 
House  through  a  report  of  a  committee.  The  President  is  the  only  constitu- 
tional organ  of  communication  between  the  Executive  and  Legislative  Depart- 
ments. It  is  his  constitutional  duty,  "  from  time  to  time,  to  give  to  Congress 
"  information  of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  to  recommend  such  measures  as 
•'  he  shall  judge  expedient."  Sir,  I  would  hold  him  to  this  duty — to  this  re- 
sponsibility. Jjf  the  House  acts  on  its  own  motion,  on  its  own  information,  it 
acts  on  its  own  responsibility.  That  responsibility,  for  one,  I  am  not  willing, 
in  this  instance,  to  assume. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  now  offer  an  amendment,  as  a  substitute  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  committee.  I  do  not  propose  to  lessen  the  appropriation,  but  to 
restrict  its  application.  I  do  not  make  it  a  question  of  amount,  but  of  prin- 
ciple.v^  I  am  willing  to  give  to  the  Executive  ample  means  to  remove  all  the 
Indians,  but  p^ropose  to  divide  the  amount  so  that  a  part  shall  be  applicable 
to  the  removal  of  those  who  please  to  go,  and  the  residue  to  those  who  may 
be  in  arms;  but  that  no  part  shall  be  applicable  to  those  who  are  neither  hos- 
tile nor  willing  to  remove.  This  amendment  will  be  applicable  to  the  Semi- 
noles,  as  well  as  to  the  Creeks,  and  will  also  enable  the  Executive  to  resort 
to  pacific,  as  well  as  warlike  measures,  for  their  removal. 

The  amendment,  as  it  came  from  the  Senate,  was  for  a  removal  of  the 
Creeks  who  should  voluntarily  assent  to  go,  and  was  based  on  the  removal 
of  12,000. 

For  this  purpose,  in  addition  to  an  unexpended  balance  of     $155,000 

It  appropriated  the  sum  of  -  -  -  -        348,230 

503,230 
To  this,  the  committee  of  the  House  have  added,  under  the 
call  of  the   Secretary  of  War,  on  an  estimate  for  remov- 
ing the  residue  of  the  nation,    -  -  -  -        675,320 


And  to  this  may  be  added,  for  the  removal  of  the 

Seminoles,  an  unexpended  balance  of  -  -    .$33,000 

And  an  additional  appropriation  of  -  -    100,000 


1,178,550 


133,000 

Making  for  the  removal  of  the  Creeks  and  Seminoles         -  $1,311,550 

Should  the  substitute  be  adopted,  the  amendment  will  stand:  "  For  the 
removal  of  Creek  Indians,  and  their  subsistence  for  one  year,  including  sub- 
sistence for  those  recently  removed,  in  addition  to  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
five  thousand  dollars  of  former  appropriations,  three  hundred  and  forty- 
eight  thousand  two  hundred  and  thirty  dollars,  under  the  \2th  article  of  the 
Creek  treaty  of  1832. 


6 

"  For  holding  trccitus  with  the  hostile  Indians  cast  of  the  Jlississippi 
river,  and  for  their  removal  west  of  (hat  river,  six  hundred  and  seventy-five 
thousand  three  hundred  and  tiventy  dollars.'*^ 

Mr.  Cliairnian,  this  presents  the  important  question  in  relation  to  all  the 
hostile  Indians,  Creeks  and  Seininoles: — Shall  force  be  the  only  means  of 
etTtcting  their  removal?  I  propose  a  pacific  measure;  and  by  the  term  in 
the  a[)proprialioH,  "/or  holding  treaties,''''  to  indicate  to  the  Executive  the 
o|)inion  of  this  Honst; — in  the  hope  that  it  will  not  be  disregarded. 
y  xlt  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted  by  some  gentlemen  that  we  cannot,  con- 
sistently with  our  national  honor,  hold  treaties,  or  even  attempt  a  pacification 
of  hostile  Indians.  "^  It  is  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Alabama,  (Mr.  Lawler,) 
that  they  nmst  be  tchippcd  before  they  can  be  removed.  What,  sir!  send 
whipped  Indians  west  of  the  Mississip|)i!  Of  tliat  I  shall  have  a  word  to  say 
hereafter.  Our  honor!  JAVHiat  of  honor  liave  we  gained  already  in  our  attempt 
to  whip  theSeminoles'?  Aiid  what  of  honor  would  be^ained,  if,  by  extermina- 
tion, we  make  a  grand  finale  of  the  huslile  tribes?  But,  sir,  this  is  also  a 
question  of  interest.  I  will  thank  the  Clerk  to  state  the  amount  already  ap- 
propriated on  account  of  these  Indian  hostilities — [$2,620,000,  besides  ra- 
tions to  the  starving  inhabitants] — more  will  be  immediately  required.  Add 
to  this  the  expense  of  another  camtjaign — of  an  arm}'  oi"  5,000.  And  to 
this,  the  amount  of  the  losses  of  the  inhabitants  of  Florida  and  Alabama — 
some  millions  more.  This,  though  an  individual  loss,  is  not  the  less  a  loss 
to  the  country.  Possibly  it  may  become  a  direct  national  loss.  On  that 
question  I  do  not  intend  to  commit  myself;  but,  sir,  if  the  sufferers  claim  in- 
demnity, they  will,  as  their  only  ground,  base  their  claims  on  the  fact  that  their 
loss  was  occasioned  (to  use  the  mildest  phrase)  by  an  improvident  act  of  the 
Government.  In  addition  to  all  this,  look  to  the  loss  uf  human  life. 
(-Xt  is  evident,  sir,  that  the  Seminole  war  was  the  immediate  cause  of  the 
Creek  hostilities.  Other  causes  have  no  doubt  concurred — causes  of  irrita- 
tion, producing  a  pre-<.disposition  to  hostility,  called  into  action  by  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Seminolesy  What  shall  be  done?  Shall  we  fight  it  out  to  the  last, 
or  attempt  a  pacification?  Sir,  in  selecting  our  course,  much  will  depei'.d  on 
the  answer  to  the  question,  "  is  our  quarrel  justV''  And  it  is  time  this  ques- 
tion was  answered. 

In  answering  this  (|nestion,  I  shall  take  occasion  to  inquire  into  ihf; 
causes  of  the  Seminole  war.  I  shall  stop  where  the  war  commenced,  leav- 
ing it  for  otliers  to  examine  into  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  conducted. 
1  pass  this  over  to  the  military  gentlemen  of  the  House — to  the  Committee 
on  Military  Aflairs — to  institute  the  proper  inquiry.  1  have  no  doubt  they  will 
do  their  duty. 

Preliminary  to  (he  investigation,  I  will  suggest  Us:o  considerations,  which 
should  be  borne  in  mind  during  the  investigation.  UCJio  first  is,  the  unequal 
terms  on  which  we  always  treat  with  the  Indian  tribes — our  superior  intelli- 
gence— their  necessities — the  fact  that  our  treaties  are,  as  they  say,  while  men's 
treaties,  made  in  our  lanauage,  translated  by  our  interpreters,  and  by  them  im- 
perfectly understood  and  imperfeclly  remembered.  The  other  is,  that  we 
are  our  own  historians — we  tell  the  whole  story — they,  |iarticidarly  the  Sem- 
inoles,  were  refused  permission  to  send  a  delegation  here  to  lell  their  part  of 
the  story.  In  reply  to  their  application,  they  v{t'\X'  told,  "  This  made  the 
President  angry ^  From  considerations  such  as  ihe*^,  in  all  questions  of 
doubt,  proper  allowances  should  be  made  in  their  favori 

I  will  also  notice  some  things  of  minor  importance,  which  may  have  had 
an  unfavorable  influence: 


L-  The  eager  desire  of  the  whites  to  obtain  their  land. — General  Eaton,  in 
liis  letter  of  the  8lii  oi"  March,  1835,  says — 

"  Tlie  people  here  want  the  lands  on  which  they  (the  Seminoles)  reside;  and  they 
will  urge  a  rcmavA,  fas  uut  nefas;  and  tiie  Rig  Swamp,  whicli,  in  tlie  treaty,  is  declared 
to  be  tlie  first  of  llieir  country  tfi_be  vacated,  is  of  high  repute;  and  it  is  that  on  which 
the  eyes  of  speculators  are  fixed. ""^ 

LJThe  unprincipled  desire  to  obtain  their  negroes. — General  Thompson,  in 
his  letter  of  the  28th  of  October,  1834,  says — 

vJijrhere  are  many  very  likely  negroes  in  this  nation;  some  of  the  whites  in  the  adja- 
cent settlements  manifest  a  restless  desire  to  obtain  thenjjj.' and  I  have  no  doubt  that 
Indian-raised  negroes  now  in  possession  of  the  whites,  some  of  tlie  negroes  in  the 
nation,  with  some  of  tlie  Indians,  have  been  induced,  by  bribery  or  otherwise,  to  stir 
up  hostility  among  tiie  Indians  to  t!ie  intended  emigration,  for  the  purpose  of  detain- 
ing the  negroes  here  until  the  territorial  jurisdiction  shall  be  extended  over  the  Indian 
country,  so  as  to  enable  fraudulent  claimants  to  prosecute  their  claims  in  the  Territorial 
coijrts,  Scc.'Vi 

\_The  opposing  influence  of  the  negroes,  excited  by  the  fear  of  their  beiiig 
sold  to  slave-dealers. — General  Thompson,  in  his  letter  of  the  27th  of  April, 
1835,  a  letter  of  great  interest,  says — 

•' Application  was  made  to  me  this  morning  for  permission  to  purchase  negroes  of 
the  Seminole  Indians,  under  a  letter  from  tlie  Office  of  Indian  Affairs,  addressed  to 
General  Call,  in  whicli  the  Commissioner  says,  as  there  is  no  law  prohibiting  the  sale  of 
slaves  by  Indians,  tliere  is  no  necessity  for  the  interference  of  the  Department  to  allow 
the  Indians  a  privilege  wiiich  they  already  have.'*^  "The  negroes  in  tlie  nation  dread 
the  idea  of  being  transferred  from  their  present  st7*Te'"of  ease  and  comparati\ig^  libertj, 
to  bondage  and  hard  labor,  under  overseers  on  sugar  and  cotton  plantations.^  They 
have  always  had  a  great  influence  on  the  Indians.  They  live  in  villages,  separate,  and,  in 
many  cases,  remote  from  their  owners,  enjoying  equal  liberty  with  their  owners,  willi  the 
single  exception  that  the  slave  supplies  his  owner  annually,  from  the  product  of  his  little 
field,  with  corn  in  projjorlion  to  the  amount  of  the  crop;  in  no  instance  tliat  has  come 
to  my  knowledge,  exceeding  ten  busliels:  the  residue  is  considered  the  property  of  the 
slave.  Many  of  these  slaves  have  stocks  of  horses,  cows,  and  hogs,  with  which  the 
Indian  owner  never  assumes  tlie  right  to  intermeddle.  I  am  tluis  particular  on  this 
|)(>int,  that  you  may  understand  the  true  cause  of  the  abhorrence  of  the  negroes  of  even 
the  idea  of  anj'  change;  and  tlie  indulgence  so  extended  by  the  owner  to  the  slave  will 
enable  you  to  credit  the  assertion  that  an  Indian  would  almost  as  soon  sell  his  child  as 
his  slave,  except  wheTi  in  a  state  of  intoxication." 

On  this  occasion,  sir,  General  Thompson  did  his  duty — he  refused  permis- 
sion to  the  applicants  to  purchase  slaves,  ur  to  say  any  tiling  on  the  subject. 
The  answer  to  this  letter  is  not  among  the  papers  in  my  possession. 

In  this  investigation,  I  shall  endeavor  to  confirie  myself  to  our  own  record. 
I  regret,  sir,  that  the  documents  just  laid  on  your  table  are  not  printed,  and 
iu  the  hands  of  all  the  members,  that  they  might  go  along  with  me,  page  by 
page.  I  desired  that  tlie  discussion  siioidd  bo  delayed  a  day  or  two  ibr  that 
purpose.  But  it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  House  that  the  discussion  shall  now 
proceed. 
cl_"^n  the  Slh  of  January,  1821,  the  Creek  treaty  of  Indian  Springs  was  con- 
cluded. At  that  time  tlie  Seminole  band  was  a  component  part  of  the  Creek 
jialion.  To  this  treaty  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  hereal'ler.  \ 
■ —  On  the  ISth  of  September,  1823,  the  treaty  of  Camp  MouTme  was  con- 
cluded with  the  Seminoles,  they  having  then  separated  from  the  Creeks.  By 
this  treaty,  we  engaged  to  pay  them  annuities  for  twenty  years,  and  guaran- 
tied to  them  tlieir  narrow  limits.  They  were  restricted  irom  tlie  sea-coasf, 
and  confined  to  the  hammocks  and  swamps,  which  they  are  now  defending  to 
the  last  drop  of  blood.  Miserable  as  their  country  is,  they  cling  to  it  with  the 
grasp  of  death.  This  treaty,  unless  abrogated  by  a  subsequent  treaty,  was 
an  existing  treaty  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  war. 


8 

^  On  the  9ih  of  May,  1832,  the  Seminole  treaty  of  Payne's  Landing  was 
concluded.  The  Seminoles  have  alleged  that  it  was  forced  upon  them.  But, 
sir,  in  our  own  story  I  find  no  evidence  of  the  fact;  all  that  I  find  is,  that  at 
that  time  they  were  in  a  state  of  starvation;  we  deemed  it  a  fit  occasion  for 
holding  a  treat}'.  We  were  not,  however,  the  cause  of  their  famine;  nor 
were  we  accountable  for  its  consequences.  We  did  no  more  than  to  take  all 
due  advantage  of  ihe  fact. 

I  ask  the  Clerk  to  read  the  preamble  and  the  7ih  article: 

"The  Seminole  Indians,  re^^arding  with  just  respect  the  solicitude  manifested  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  for  the  improvement  of  their  condition,  by  recom- 
mending their  removal  to  a  country  more  suitable  to  their  habits  and  wants  than  the 
one  they  at  present  occupy  in  the  Territory  of  Florida,  are  willing  that  their  confiden- 
tial chiefs,  Jumper,  Fuch-a-lus-ti-co-had-jo,  Charley  Emarlla,  Coi-hadjo,  Holati- 
Emartla,  Yaha-hadjo,  Sam  Jones,  accompanied  by  their  faithful  interpreter,  Abraham, 
should  be  sent,  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States,  as  early  as  convenient,  to  examine 
the  country  assigned  to  the  Creeks  west  of  the  Mississippi  river;  and  should  they  be 
satisfied  with  the  character  of  that  country,  and  of  the  favorable  disposition  of  the 
Creeks  to  rt-unile  witii  the  Seminoles  as  one  people,  the  articles  of  the  compact  and 
agreement  herein  stipulated  at  Payne's  Landing,  on  the  Ocklewaha  river,  this  ninth 
day  of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  between  James  Gadsden  for 
and  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  and  the  undersigned  chief's  and  head  men  for  and  in 
behalf  of  the  Seminole  Indians,  shall  be  binding  on  the  respective  parties." 

"Article  vii.  The  Seminole  Indians  will  remove  within  three  (3)  years  after  the 
ratification  of  this  agreement,  and  the  expenses  of  their  removal  shall  be  defrayed  by 
the  United  States;  and  such  subsistence  shall  also  be  furnished  them,  for  a  term  not  ex- 
ceeding twelve  (12)  months,  after  their  arrival  at  their  new  residence,  as  in  tiie  opin- 
ion of  the  President  their  numbers  and  circumstances  may  require;  the  emigration  to 
commence  as  early  as  practicable  in  the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-three  (1833;) 
and  with  those  Indians  occupying  the  Big  Swamp,  and  other  parts  of  the  country,  be- 
yond the  limits  as  defined  in  the  second  article  of  the  treaty  concluded  at  Camp  Moul- 
trie creek,  so  that  the  whole  of  that  proportion  of  the  Seminoles  may  be  removed 
within  the  year  aforesaid;  and  the  remainder  of  the  tribe,  in  about  equal  proportions, 
during  the  subsequent  years  of  eighteen  hundred  and  thirty-four  and  five,  (1834  and 
1835.)" 

In  relation  to  this  treaty,  I  shall  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  endeavor  to  sustain 
the  three  following  positions: 

I.  That  the  treaty  never  became  obligatory  on  the  Seminoles. 

II.  That  the  Government  have  attempted  to  execute  it  contrary  to  their 
own  interpretation. 

III.  That  they  have  attempted  to  execute  it  by  an  act  of  war,  before  the 
commission  of  any  hostile  act  on  the  part  of  the  Seminoles. 

If  I  sustain  these  positions,  I  shall  have  shown,  satisfactorily,  the  causes  of 
the  Seminole  war;  and  answered  the  question,  "is  our  quarrel  just"!" 

The   treaty   of  Payne's   Landing  never  became  obligatory  on  the  Semi- 
noles, 
Z'       1.  Because  the  condition  precedent,  on  which  alone  it  could  become  oblig- 
atory, was  not  fulfilled. 

That  condition,  in  substance,  was,  that  the  Seminole  delegation  should, 

after  visiting  the  western  country,  be  satisfied  with  the  character  of  the  coun- 

/    try  to  which  they  proposed  to  emigrate;   and,  also,  of  the  favorable  disposi- 

/     tion  of  the  Creeks  (who  were  entitled  to  the  country,  and  with  whom  it  was 

proposed   they  should  hereafter  reside,)  to  re-unite   with    the   Seminoles  as 

one  people. 

The  delegation  visited  the  western  country,  and,  before  their  return,  or  hav- 
ing any  communication  with  their  tribe,  on  the  28th  March,  1833,  at  Fort  Gib- 
son, signed  articles  with  our  commissioners,  by  which  they  expressed  themselves 


"7 


/ 


satisfied  with  the  character  of  the  country,  and  of  the  favorable  disposition  of 
the  Creeks  to  unite  with  the  Seminoles  as  one  people.  This,  on  the  face 
of  it,  with  the  exception  of  the  change  of  the  word  V7iite  for  re-uniic,  is  a 
literal  declaration  of  what  was  required  by  the  treaty.  But  was  it  a  substan- 
tial compliance?  was  it  an  act  of  which,  in  good  faith,  we  ought  to  avail  our- 
selves] Is  the  complaint  of  the  Indians  without  cause?  General  Thompson,  in 
his  letter  of  the  28th  October,  1834,  states  it  in  their  own  language:  "  Juni- 
"  per  says,  they  agreed  at  Payne's  Landing  to  go  and  examine  the  country; 
*'  but  they  were  not  bound  to  move  to  it,  until  the  nation  should  agree  to  it, 
"  after  the  return  of  the  delegation." 

The  delegation  were  their  confidential  chiefs — the  agents  of  the  Seminoles; 
or,  if  you  please,  umpires  authorized  to  determine  for  them.  But,  sir,  were 
not  the  Seminoles  to  be  heard  before  them,  as  well  as  the  United  States? 
They  were  not  heard.  The  delegation  went  to  visit  the  west,  and  tiiere,  be- 
fore returning  to  consult  the  Seminoles,  surrounded  by  the  whiles,  signed 
their  determination.  The  Seminoles  complained,  and  with  justice,  that  the  de- 
termination was  made  on  an  ex  parte  hearing.  On  their  return,  the  delegation 
reported  that  they  were  satisfied  with  the  country,  and  the  Creeks  there. 
But  their  objection  was  to  the  hostile  disposition  of  the  surrounding  tribes 
— that  they  saw  scalps  brought  in.  They  were  then  told,  treaties  would  be 
made  with  the  hostile  tribes,  of  which  they  would  be  informed.  Sir,  they 
claimed  a  right  to  be  heard,  before  their  delegation  made  a  final  decision. 

But,  sir,  this  is  not  the  most  material  part  of  tlie  objection.  A  part  of  the 
condition  was,  that  the  delegation  should  be  satisfied  with  the  disposition  of 
the  Creeks — of  the  Creek  nation  to  re-unite  with  them  as  one  people.  I 
now  ask  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  the  facts. 

By  a  treaty  concluded  with  the  Creek  nation  east  of  the  Mississippi,  on 
the  24th  March,  1832,  almost  cotemporanoous  with  the  Seminole  treaty,  the 
country  west  of  the  Mississippi  was  secured  to  the  Creek  nation.  The  emi- 
gration commenced;  and  it  appears,  by  a  document  annexed  to  the  report 
'  of  the  Committee  of  Indian  Affairs  of  February,  1834,  that  the  whole  number 
of  the  Creeks  who  had  emigrated  to  the  west  was  only  2,459,  while  the  num- 
ber remaining  east  was  22,638.  The  assent  of  the  delegation  to  the  supple- 
mental treaty,  declaring  themselves  satisfied,  was  yielded  on  the  28th  March, 
1833;  they  had,  therefore,  consulted  only  this  sn)all  portion  west.  This  was 
!  known  to  our  commissioners  at  the  lime,  and  to  our  Government  before  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty.  This  is  no  technical  ground  of  objection.  But  a 
consequence  resulted,  that  formed  a  substantial  reason  why  the  Seminoles 
should  decline  to  emigrate. 

While  a  component  part  of  the  Creek  nation,  the  Seminoles  were  a  sepa- 
rate band,  and,  as  such,  were  united  with  the  Creeks.  The  treaty  of  Payne's 
Landing  contemplated  a  reunion — not  an  amalgamation.  By  the  treaty 
concluded  with  the  Creeks  west,  on  the  14lh  February,  1833,  and  the  sup- 
plemental Seminole  treaty  of  28th  March,  J 833,  the  Seminoles  were  to  be 
located  by  themselves,  and  a  tract  of  land  was  designated  for  their  location. 
Their  rights  to  any  location  depended  entirely  on  the  assent  of  the  Creek 
nation.  The  Creeks  west  assented  for  themselves  only;  but,  in  relation  to 
this,  the  Creeks  east  were  neither  consulted  nor  informed.  The  fact  of  this 
treaty  of  the  Creeks  west  was  concealed  from  them.  Perhaps  the  term  con- 
cealed is  too  strong:  it  was,  however,  not  communicated  to  them.  These, 
as  inferences,  are  drawn  from  a  document  which  I  will  now  ask  the  Clerk  to 
read.  It  is  a  letter  from  General  Eaton  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  the  8th 
March,  1835,  to  a  portion  of  which  I  will  ask  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

\ 


10 

"There  is  anollier  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  these  people:  a  separate  tract,  out  of 
the  Creek  lands,  jias  been  set  apart  for  their  homes.  Tliere  is  a  ratified  treaty  in 
your  ofiice,  made  by  General  Stokes,  ElKwortii,  and  Schermerhorn,  with  the  Creeks, 
whicli  authorizes  the  location.  JVhile  negotiating  with  the  Indians  last  year,  at  "Wash- 
ington, I  inulersto<id  the  Creeks  c^/scorererf  this  act,  and  had  sent  word  to  the  Seminole 
bands,  that  while  they  were  willing  to  receive  them  in  their  limits  as  a  portion  of  their 
nation,  tliey  would  not  siifl'L-r  them  to  enjoy  any  separate  allotment  of  tlieir  soil.  This, 
too,  has  intiinidaled  them,  and  is,  I  dare  say,  the  essential  cause  of  tlieir  rehictance  to 
go  off." 

Yes,  sir,  in  the  winter  of  1S34,  ihey  discovered  tiiis  western  Creek  treaty, 
making  the  separate  location:  they  rejected  it;  they  had  a  right  so  to  do; 
they  sent  word  to  the  Seniinoles  thai  they  would  not  agree  to  it.  And  tliis, 
General  Eaton  says,  was,  in  his  opinion,  the  essential  cause  of  their  refusal 
to  go  off.  But  huw  was  this  inateriaH  What  objection  could  the  Sen)inoles 
iiave  to  an  amalgamation  with  the  Creek  nation?  I  ask  the  attention  of  the 
committee  to  the  grounds  of  their  objection. 

,By  the  Creek  treaty  of  1821,  before  mentioned,  it  was  agreed  that  the  sum 
of  $250,000  of  the  money  to  bo  paid  to  the  Creeks  for  the  cession  of  their 
lands  should  be  paid  to  citizens  of  Georgia,  for  property  taken  or  destroyed 
by  the  Creeks  (then  including  the  Sen)inoles)  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  in- 
lercourse  act  of  1802,  and  which  was  accordingly  reserved,  and  subsequently 
paid.  The  spoliation  provided  for  must  have  taken  place  nineteen  years 
before  this  treaty;  and,  during  these  nineteen  years,  individuals  claimed  and 
possessed  the  property  originally  taken  from  the  citizens  of  Georgia.  The 
ireaty  on  the  part  of  the  Creeks  could  never  have  been  intended  to  disturb 
the  rights  of  individuals  of  the  tribes,  or  of  any  of  its  bands.  Between  the 
date  of  that  treaty,  and  that  of  the  Seminole  treaty  of  18o2,  no  such  claim 
was  set  up.  In  the  mean  time,  intermarriages  had  taken  place  between  the 
Seminoles  and  their  slaves.  The  first  we  hear  of  any  claim  was  prior  to  the 
ratification  of  the  treaty  of  Paync^'s  Landing.  General  Thompson,  in  his  re- 
port of  the  1st  January,  1834,  to  Governor  Duval,  and  by  him  enclosed  to  the 
Commissioner  of  Indian  Affaiis  on  the  20lh,  says:  "  The  principal  causes 
"  which  operate  to  cherish  this  feeling  hostile  to  emigration  are,  first,  tlie  fe<jr 
"  that  their  reunion  with  the  Creeks,  which  will  subject  them  to  the  govcrn- 
"  ment  and  control  of  the  Creeks'  national  council,  will  be  a  surrender  of  a 
"  lar2:(-  negro  property  to  the  Creeks  as  antagonist  claimants."  "  Tiie  Creeks' 
"  claim  to  the  negroes  now  in  possession  of  the  Seminoles  grows  out  of  the 
"  tiT.aiv  of  1821."  "  They  have  an  agent  now  in  the  Seminole  ccuinMy  urging 
"  the  claim  of  the  Creeks  to  negroes,  or  their  descendants,  which  formed  a 
"  part  o\'  the  consideration  for  which  the  Creeks  consented  to  pay  the 
"  $250,000  to  the  Georgia  claimants."  It  will  be  seen  that  the  claim  thus 
brought  forward  in  1834  referred  to  transactions  of  thirty-two  years'  stand- 
injr,  and  was  for  negroes  taken,  and  their  descendants — for  the  wives  and 
(iiiidren  of  the  Seminoles. 

General  Thompson,  in  his  letter  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Afi'airs  of 
the  I5;li  July,  1834,  again  refers  to  this  claim  in  connexion  with  the  subject 
of  amalgamation:  "  If,  as  a  distinct  body,  under  the  protection  and  control 
"of  their  own  chiefs,  located  on  the  territory  assigned  to  them  adjoining  the 
"  Creeks,  the  Seminoles  would  be  afraid  that  a  general  council  of  the  two 
"  tribes  would  deprive  them  of  tlie  slaves  in  question,  it  seems  to  me  that 
"  their  fears  could  not  fail  to  be  greatly  increased  by  a  promiscuous  introduction 
"  of  them  among  the  Creeks,  which  would  reduce  their  chiefs  to  privates,  and 
"  subject  them  and  their  slaves  w.ovc  certainly  to  the  entire  control  of  the 
"  Creeks."     Thus,  sir,    it    appears   their   objection    to    amalgamation    was 


11 

founded  on  substantial  reasons.  Nor  wore  tliey  bound  by  the  treaty  to  amal- 
gamate with  the  Creeks;  nor  were  the  Creeks  east  bound  by  the  act  of  the 
Creeks  west,  assigning  them  a  separate  location.  The  country  west  was 
ceded  to  the  whole  Creek  nation;  no  part  of  it  could  be  ceded  to  the  Senii- 
noles,  without  the  assent  of  the  Creek  nation;  neither  the  first  ten  Creek  emi- 
grants, nor  the  tirst  hundred,  nor  the  first  2,459,  had  the  right  to  cede  the 
whole  or  any  part  of  the  territory. 

Thus,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  appears,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  delegation  signed 
the  supplemental  treaty,  at  Fort  Gibson,  surrounded  by  our  commissioners 
and  people,  without  consulting  their  tribe;  that  they  never  consulted  the 
Creeks  east;  that  no  location  was  made  tiiat  was  autliorizcd  by  the  Creek 
nation;  and  that  this  was  known  to  the  commissioners  at  the  time  the  sup- 
plemental treaty  was  signed.  In  addition  to  this,  that  the  Creeks  east  in- 
sisted on  their  amalgamation,  the  Creeks  west  had  agreed  only  to  a  reunion; 
that  the  Seminoles,  for  substantial  reasons,  refused  to  amalgamate,  and  that 
all  this  was  known  to  our  Government  before  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 
*,The  act,  then,  of  the  delegation,  however  formal,  was  an  act  done  without 
authority,  and,  in  its  operation,  in  fraud  of  the  rigiils  of  the  Seminoles.  Can, 
then,  the  United  States,  honestly  or  decently  avail  themselves  of  this  act  as 
evidence  of  the  fulfilment  of  t!ie  condition  precedent? 

It  should  be  borns  in  mind  that  the  question  raised  is  between  the  parties 
to  the  treaty,  and  not  between  one  of  the  parties  and  its  citizens,  or  between 
the  executive  and  the  legislative  power. 

The  next  objection  to  the  validity  of  the  treaty  is,  that  it  was  not  ratified 
on  our  part,  and  an  appropriation  made  to  carry  it  into  efliecl,  until  two  years 
had  elapsed;  during  which  period,  it  was,  by  its  terms,  to  have  been  in  the 
course  of  execution. 

V._The  treaty  was  concluded  on  the  9tii  May,  1832,  and  was  received  on  tiie 
29th;  and  during  the  session  of  Congress,  which  adjourned  on  the  16lh  July, 
provision  was  made  for  commissioners  on  our  part  to  meet  the  Seminole  dele- 
gation at  Fort  Gibson,  in  October,  1833.  At  what  time  either  arrived  tliere, 
or  for  what  reason  the  supplemental  treaty,  or  that  with  the  Creeks  west, 
was  delayed,  does  not  appear.  The  treaty  with  the  Creeks  west  was 
signed  at  Fort  Gibson  on  the  14th  February,  1S33,  and  liie  supplemental 
Seminole  treaty  on  tlie  28th  March  following,  and  received  at  Washington  on 
the  28th  of  October  of  the  same  vear.  The  Seminole  treaties  were  ratified 
on  the  8th  and  12tli  April,  1834.  " 

From  this  statement  of  fact'j,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  treaty  of  1832  might 
have  been  ratified  in  1832,  and  an  appropriation  been  made  provisionally  for 
its  execution  in  1833.  The  condition  precedent  was  to  be  fulfilled  by  an  act 
on  the  part  of  the  Seminoles,  and  required  no  subsequent  assent  on  our  part. 

On  these  facts  I  submit,  as  an  opening  argument  against  the  validity  of 
the  treaty,  an  extract  from  the  letter  of  General  Eaton,  of  the  Sth  of  March, 
1835,  which  has  been  read: 

"I  li.ive  received  your  letter,  wltli  its  enclosures,  rel.itivc  to  removinij  tlie  Seminole 
Indians,  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1832,  hut  whicli  was  not  ratified  until  1834. 
I  pray  you,  does  not  this  circumstance  raise  a  doubt  whetlier,  by  strict  rule,  tlie  treaty 
can  be  considered  valid  and  bindinc^?  Our  Indian  compacts  must  be  construed  and 
controlled  by  the  rules  which  civilized  people  practise,  because,  in  all  our  actions  with 
them,  we  have  ))ut  the  treaty-making  machinery  in  operation,  precisely  in  tiie  same 
way,  and  to  the  same  extent,  that  it  is  employed  with  the  civilized  powers  of  Europe.^ 
Tiie  rule  practised  upon  by  us  has  been,  and  is,  that  the  ratification  shall  take  place 
either  within  an  agreed  time,  or  in  a  reasoTiable  time.  When  Florida  was  ceded,  in 
1819,  the  Cortes  failed  to  exchange  ratifications  within  the  prescribed  time,  and  after- 


12 

wards,  at  a  subsequent  session,  it  was  assented  to  by  the  Spanish  Cortes.  The  sense  of 
this  Government  was,  that  the  first  ratification  made  by  the  Senate  was  inoperative,  and 
again  the  subject  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Monroe  for  the  action  and  approval  of  the 
Senate.  This  appears  to  me  to  be  a  precedent  that  runs  parallel  with  this  Indian  com- 
pact. It  says,  one-third  shall  remove  the  first  year,  viz:  as  early  as  practicable  in  1833; 
and  one-third  in  the  next,  and  the  next,  1834  and  '35.  Now,  until  1834,  when  the 
ratification  took  place,  the  treaty  w.is  a  dead  letter.  It  is  in  their  power  now  to  plead, 
and  say,  we  were  ready  in  1833  and  '34;  and  hearing  nothing  of  your  determination, 
we  had  a  right  to  suppose  you  did  not  mean  to  stand  by  the  treaty,  and  accord- 
ingly our  minds  have  changed.  With  civilized  nations,  I  think  the  plea  would  be  avail- 
able, and,  if  so,  the  Indian  should  have  the  benefit  of  it,^ 

In  consequence  of  this  letter,  the  subject  was  referred  to  the  Attorney 
General,  whose  opinion  I  now  present  to  the  committee. 

'•AxTORjfET  General's  Office,  March  26,  1835." 
•*  Sir:  In  your  letter  of  the  21st  instant,  after  enclosing  to  me  a  communication  of 
Governor  Eaton,  in  which  he  suggests  doubts  concerning  the  validity  of  the  treaty 
with  the  Seminole  Indians,  concluded  on  the  9ih  of  May,  1832,  and  ratified  on  the  9th 
April,  1834,  in  consequence  of  the  delay  which  took  place  in  the  ratification,  you 
requested  my  opinion  upon  the  validity  of  the  treaty,  and  upon  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  remove  these  Indians  in  the  years  1835,  1836,  and  1837. 

'♦  There  is  certainly  great  force  in  the  suggestions  made  by  Governor  Eaton;  and  as 
the  Governmeii*^,  in  its  relations  with  the  Indians,  is  necessarily  obliged  to  become, 
for  all  practical  purposes,  its  own  interpreter  and  judge,  it  is  under  the  highest  obli- 
gation to  make  no  claim  under  the  treaty,  and  to  set  up  no  construction  of  its  terms, 
which  are  not  fairly  authorized  by  its  sense  and  spirit.  And  if  it  can  be  shown  that  a 
material  cltange  of  circumstances,  connected  with  the  question  of  removal,  had  actu- 
ally occurred,  during  the  period  which  elapsed  between  the  signing  and  ratification  of 
tile  treaty,  then  it  is  plain  that  the  Indians  can  no  longer  be  held  to  it,  unless  by  some 
act  since  its  ratification  they  have  recognised  and  affirmed  its  validity.  In  the  present 
case,  as  no  time  was  limited  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty;  as  the  supplemental  ar- 
ticles of  the  28th  March,  1833,  treated  it  as  yet  in  existence,  ahhough  not  tiien  ratified 
by  the  President  and  Senate;  and  as  no  material  change  of  circumstances  is  suggested, 
I  think  it  must  be  deemed  a  valid  and  subsisting  treaty. 

"If  the  treaty  be  valid,  the  particular  intent  to  remove  in  1833,  1834,  and  1835,  must 
yield  to  the  general  engagement  to  remove  in  three  years  from  the  ratification;  and 
the  same  provision  must  be  made  for  the  unforeseen  case  which  has  now  arisen,  which 
was  expressly  made  for  the  case  anticipated.  It  was  evidently  the  understanding  and 
the  design  of  the  parties  that  the  removal  should  commence  with  the  year  following 
the  ratification,  and  that  the  tribe  should  remove  in  about  equal  proportions  during  that 
and  the  two  following  years;  consequently,  they  are  now  to  be  removed  in  the  years 
1835,  1836,  and  1837. 

"B.  F.  BUTLER." 

I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Attorney  General  has  made  the  best  of  his 
case;  and,  with  great  deference,  1  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  reasons 
on  which  it  is  founded. 

1st.  "As  no  time  was  limited  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty."  But,  sir, 
the  time  for  the  commencement  of  its  execution  was  fixed.  The  Seminoles 
are  to  commence  their  removal  in  1833.  This  could  not  be  obligatory  on 
the  Seminoles,  unless  the  treaty  was  also  obligatory  on  the  United  States — 
unless  the  treaty  was  ratified.  It  was  undoubtedly  contemplated,  at  the  time 
of  its  being  signed,  that  it  would  have  been  ratified  in  1832.  It  was  proper 
that  it  should  have  been  so  done.  The  stipulations  on  both  sides  were  set- 
tled. All  that  remained  to  be  done  was  to  be  done  by  the  separate  act  of 
the  Seminoles;  it  required  no  assent  on  our  part.  Why  should  they  be  ask- 
ed to  do  that  act  before  we  had  said  that,  when  done,  it  should  be  final? 
But,  before  the  ratification,  the  act  of  the  Seminoles  conferred  no  obligation 
on  us  to  ratify  the  treaty.  Had  it  been  immediately  ratified,  the  Seminole 
delegation  must,  if  they  wished  to  hold  us  to  the  treaty,  have  done  the  act 


13 

required  in  season  to  have  commenced  the  removal  in  1833.  If  it  was  their 
fault  that  the  act  was  not  performed  in  time  to  commence  before  1835,  they 
could  not  hold  us  to  the  treaty,  but  on  condition  that  they  all  removed  in 
that  year.  They  could  not  avail  themselves  of  their  own  dela}'.  The 
attorney  general  seems  wholly  to  overlook  the  consideration,  that  we  might 
and  ought,  immediately,  during  the  session  of  Congress,  when  the  treaty  was 
returned,  to  have  ratified  it.  But  the  delay  of  1834  is  solely  imputable  to 
our  own  neglect.  The  supplemental  treaty  was  received  in  September, 
1833,  and  no  appropriation  was  made  to  carry  it  into  effect  during  1834. 
The  principle  of  the  Attorney  General  has  no  limit.  If  two  years  of  the 
period  of  the  execution  might  elapse,  why  not  the  three  years,  or  ten  years? 

2d.  "As  the  supplemental  articles  of  the  28th  of  March,  1833,  treated  it 
as  yet  in  existence,  although  not  then  ratified  by  the  President  and  Senate."  Is 
it  probable  that  the  Seminole  delegation  knew  whether  it  was  ratified  or  not, 
or  the  effect  of  treating  it  as  an  existing  treaty?  If  they  considered  it  had 
been  ratified,  then  they  must  have  considered  that  the  supplemental  treaty 
made  it  binding;  but  would  their  considering  one  way  or  the  other  impose 
an  obligation  on  the  United  States  to  ratify  it?  The  signing  the  supplemen- 
tal articles,  then,  did  not  make  it  binding  on  us  or  them. 

3d.  "As  no  material  change  of  circumstances  is  suggested."  And  who, 
sir,  was  there  to  suggest  it?  It  was  an  ex  parte  hearing.  The  Seminoles 
had  no  delegation  there  to  make  suggestions.  The  only  thing  before  the 
Attorney  General  seems  to  have  been  General  Eaton's  letter  and  the  treaty. 
But,  considering  this  a  treaty  between  two  nations,  admitting  we  have  taken 
upon  ourselves  to  be  our  own  interpreters  on  questions  of  construction,  are 
we  entitled  also  to  take  upon  ourselves  to  be  the  exclusive  judges  of  the 
situation  of  the  Seminoles?  Had  not  they  at  least  an  equal  right  to  judge 
of  their  own  condition?  They  certainly  had  the  best  means  of  judging. 
They  required  no  suggestions.  They  had  this  right.  The}'  exercised  it; 
and  of  their  determination  we  were  informed  before  the  ratification  of  the 
treaty — so  well  informed  of  it,  that,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  it  was  then 
in  contemplation  that  it  might  be  necessary  to  use  force  to  compel  its  execu- 
tion. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  not  yet  done  with  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral. I  shall  now  rely  upon  it  as  an  authority  to  show  that  the  treaty  was  not 
obligatory  on  the  Seminoles;  1  shall  show  that  "  a  material  change  of  circum- 
stances" connected  with  the  question  of  removal  had  actually  occurred  during 
the  period    which  elapsed    between  the  signing  and  ratification  of  the  treaty. 

What,  sir,  was  the  situation,  or  rather  what  were  the  "  circumstances''''  of 
the  Seminoles  when  this  treaty  was  signed?  They  were  living  separate  from 
the  Creeks;  they  had  had,  from  1802  up  to  that  time,  a  period  of  thirty  years, 
undisturbed  possession  of  the  negroes  taken  by  them  from  the  citizens  of 
Georgia.  The  claim  of  the  people  of  Georgia  was  quieted  by  the  Creek 
treaty  before  mentioned,  of  1821.  Since  that  time,  the  Creeks  had  set  up 
no  claim  to  them.  No  objection  against  the  re-union  of  the  Creeks  and 
Seminoles,  according  to  their  former  condition,  existed,  or  was  known  to  ex- 
ist, on  the  part  of  the  Creeks.  Under  this  state  of  things,  the  treaty  was  sign- 
ed; and  it  was  signed  on  the  basis  of  the  continuance  of  this  state  of  things; 
that  the  Seminoles  should,  as  a  separate  band,  be  re-united  to  and  form  a 
component  part  of  the  Creek  nation,  as  one  people.  But  what  was  the  situa- 
tion of  the  Seminoles — what  were  their  "  circumstances''^  when  the  treaty 
was  ratified,  April  8,  1834?  In  the  mean  time,  two  material  circumstances, 
or  rather,  a  change  of  two  material  circumstances  had  occurred. 


14 

I.  The  Creeks  had  set  up  a  claim  to  the  negroes  and  their  descendants, 
taken  by  the  Seminoles  from  the  people  of  Georgia  prior  to  1802,  under  the 
pretence  that,  on  the  payment  of  the  $-250,000  under  the  treaty  of  1821,  they 
became  the  property  of  tiie  Creek  nation,  of  which  the  Seminole  band  was  a 
part.  This  has  been  already  sufficiently  explained.  To  the  Seminoles  it  was 
no  consolation  that  the  claim  was  unjust;  for, 

2.  The  Creeks  east  had  rei'used  to  sanction  the  agreement  of  the  Creeks 
west,  allowing  to  the  Seminoles  a  separate  location.  This  was,  in  effect,  a 
refusal  on  the  part  of  the  Creeks  to  re-unite  with  the  Seminoles.  No,  sir, 
they  would  not  re-unite,  but  insisted  on  an  amalgamation.  It  was  certain  tliat 
,an  amalgamation  would  subject  this  claim  to  the  decision  of  the  Creek  coun- 
cil; from  which  the  Seminoles  had  nothing  to  hope.  Sir,  this  was  no  pre- 
tence. The  objection  was  taken  in  good  faith.  You  have  the  opinion  of 
(j'eneral  Eaton  that  it  was  the  essential  cause  of  their  unwillingness  to  go 
at  all. 

The  materiality  of  this  change  of  circumstances  is  manifest;  it  was  the  es- 
sential cause  of  the  reluctance  of  the  Seminoles  to  emigrate.  In  fine,  it  ren- 
dered the  execution  of  the  treaty  impracticable,  consistently  with  the  just  rights 
of  the  Seminoles;  and  had  it  existed  at  the  date  of  t!ie  treaty,  th-st  treaty  would 
not  have  been  made. 

These  objections  were  communicated  to  our  Government,  as  I  have  before 
stated,  prior  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty;  and  so  important  were  they  then 
deemed,  that  General  Thompson,  in  his  report  of  the  1st  of  January,  1834, 
recommended  "the  polic\'  of  conclusively  quieting  the  Creek  claims,  so  as  to 
leave  those  Indians  (the  Seminoles)  forever  at  rest  upon  the  subject." 

I  will  here  remark,  sir,  that  General  Thompson,  in  a  subsequent  letter,  sug- 
gests a  doubt  as  to  the  construction  of  the  treaty  of  1832 — whether  it  gave  to 
the  Seminoles  the  right  to  a  separate  location,  or  obliged  them  to  amalgamate. 
He  gave  to  it  the  former  construction,  though  he  thought  it  susceptible  of  the 
latter.  But,  sir,  we  shall  be  placed  in  this  dilemma:  if  the  latter  construction 
be  adopted,  the  location  was  void,  as  mads  contrary  to  the  treaty;  if  the  for- 
mer, then  we  are  met  by  the  refusal  of  the  Creeks  east;  and  in  both  we  are 
met  by  the  fact  of  a  material  change  of  circumstances  between  the  signing 
and  the  ratification. 

On  the  case  as  now  made,  I  claim  the  authority  of  the  opinion  of  the  At- 
torney General  as  decisive  against  the  validity  of  the  treaty: 

"  Unless,  by  some  act  since  its  r.itification,  they  have  recog'nised  and  affirmed  its  va- 
lidity." 

But,  sir,  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  his  communication  of  the  25th  of  May, 
this  day  laid  on  our  tables,  takes  a  new  ground,  with  a  view  of  making  a  case 
within  this  exception.  I  did  not  expect  it.  Yet,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  meet 
it.  (Referring  to  a  transaction  of  the  23d  of  April,  1835,  he  says: 

"In  obedience  to  the  resolution  of  tlie  House  of  Representatives  of  tlie  2lst  instant, 
I  liave  the  honor  to  stale  that  this  Department  has  not  received  any  information  since 
mv  report  of  the  9th  of  Februurj',  to  the  Senate,  in  answei-  to  their  resolution  of 
February  3d,  showing  the  causes  tliat  induced  the  Seminole  Indians  to  commence  hos- 
tilities, so  far  as  they  were  known  here.  The  abstract  contained  in  the  report  I  have 
the  lionor  to  enclose;  and  I  beg'  leave,  in  addition,  to  state,  tiiat  it  will  appear,  by  refer- 
ence thereto,  and  to  the  document  submitted  with  it  to  the  Senate,  tlmt  the  complaints 
of  the  Seminole  Indians  were  investlsfated  by  General  Clinch,  (General  Thompson,  and 
Lieutenant  Harris;  and  that,  on  a  full  consideration  of  the  whole  matter  in  open  council, 
an  arrangement  was  made  to  the  mutual  satisfaction  of  the  parties,  which  was  in  the 
following  terms: 

•'We,  the  undersigned  chiefs  and  sub-chiefs  of  the  Seminole  tribe  of  Indians,  do 
hereby,  for  ourselves  and  for  our  people,  voluntarily  acknowledge  the  validity  of  the 


15 

treaty  between  the  United  States  and  the  Seminole  nation  of  Indians,  made  and  con- 
cluded at  Payne's  Landiner,  on  the  Ocklewaha  river,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1832,  and  the 
treaty  between  the  United  States  and  tlie  Seminole  nation  of  Indians,  made  and  con- 
cluded at  Fort  Gibson,  on  the  2Sth  day  of  March,  1833,  by  Montford  Stokes,  II.  L. 
Ellsworth,  and  J.  F.  Schermerhorn,  commissioners  on  tlie  part  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  delegates  of  the  said  nation  of  Seminole  Indians  on  the  part  of  the  s-aid  nation; 
and  we,  the  said  chieis  and  sub-chiefs,  do,  for  ourselves  and  for  our  people,  freely  and 
fully  assent  to  the  above  recited  treaties,  in  all  their  provisions  and  stipulations.  ^ 
•'  Done  in  council  at  the  Seminole  agency,  this  23d  day  of  April,  1835."       — -— ^ 

[Signed  by  sixteen  chiefs  and  sub-chiefs.] 

When  1  said  that  the  Secretary  had  taken  a  new  ground,  1  did  not  mean 
to  be  understood  that  lliese  articles  were  now  for  the  first  time  published; 
they  were  inserted  in  the  answer  to  the  call  of  the  Senate  of  the  9lh  February. 
But,  sir,  this  is  the  first  declaration,  in  form,  that  they  were  relied  on,  by  the 
Executive,  as  a  confirmation  of  the  treaty,  or  that  any  obligation  whatever  was 
intended  to  be  inferred  from  them. 

Passing  by  the  question  whether  this  act,  on  the  face  of  it,  committed  the 
Seminole  tribe,  I  will  now,  sir,  proceed  to  stale  to  the  committee  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  executed;  and  here,  too,  I  shall  confine  myself  to 
our  own  story,  as  recorded  in  the  War  Office. 

On  the  22d  April,  1835,  a  council  of  the  Seminole  chiefs  was  assembled 
by  General  Clinch  and  Captain  Harris,  of  the  army,  and  General  Thompson, 
the  removing  agent.  Prior  to  this,  they  had  been  informed  of  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Seminoles,  with  few  exceptions,  not  to  execute  the  treaty;  and 
orders  had  been  given  to  General  Clinch  to  execute  it  by  military  force.  An 
account  of  the  proceedings  at  this  council  is  given  in  the  joint  letter  of  the 
24th  of  April. 

On  the  first  day  of  the  council,  General  Clinch  said  to  the  Seminoles: 

"The  time  of  expostulation  had  passed;  that,  already,  too  much  had  been  said,  and 
nothing  had  been  done;  that  the  influence  of  the  agents  of  Government,  their  powers 
of  persuasion  and  argument,  had  been  exhausted,  both  in  public  councils  and  in  private 
interviews,  to  induce  them  to  do  right;  that  we  had  lingered  long  enough  in  the  per- 
formance of  our  duties  to  have  averted,  had  they  been  willing,  the  evils  that  threatened 
their  foolish  resistance  to  the  fulfilment  of  pledges  solemnly  and  fairly  made  by  them; 
and  that  now  it  was  time  to  act.  He  had  been  sent  here  to  enforce  the  treaty;  he  had 
warriors  enough  to  do  it,  and  he  would  do  it.  It  was  the  question  now,  whether  they 
would  go  of  their  own  accord,  or  go  by  force."  With  this,  they  were  told  they  might 
depart;  and  until  morning  was  given  them  to  think  upon  wiiat  had  been  said.  "In  the 
course  of  the  morning,  eight  principal  chiefs  gave  their  assent  to  abide  by  the  stipulations 
uf  the  treaty;  five  remained  opposed  to  it." 

.  Micanopy  was  absent.  "  General  Thompson  had,  upon  the  first  Intimation  in  tlie  council 
of  this  day,  of  further  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  chiefs,  demanded  of  the  chief  Jumper 
whether  Micanopy  (by  whom  he  knew  the  movements  of  a  number  of  them  to  be  con- 
trolled) intended  to  abide  by  the  treaty  or  not?  And  when  Jumper  finally  confessed 
that  he  was  authorized  to  say  that  Micanopy  did  not,  he  (Thompson)  promptly  declared 
that  he  no  longer  considered  Micanopy  a  chief;  that  his  name  sliouid  be  struck  from 
the  council  of  the  nation;  that  he  should  treat  all  who  acted  like  him  in  the  like  manner; 
and  that  he  would  neltlier  acknowledge  nor  do  business  with  him  or  with  any  other,  as 
a  chief,  who  did  not  honestly  comply  with  the  terms  of  his  engagements;  that  the  door 
was,  however,  still  open  to  them,  if  they  wished  to  act  honestly." 

"  In  consequence  of  this,  the  names  of  the  Jive  opposing  chiefs  [Micanopy  not  present] 
were  struck  from  the  council  of  the  nation." 

All  this  preceded  the  signing  the  agreement;  and  under  this  threat  and  this  act 
the  articles  were  signed.  If  an  enemy  in  arms,  force  may  compel  the  con- 
quered to  submit  to  any  terms  the  conqueror  may  dictate;  but,  sir,  what  can 
be  said  of  this  as  a  transaction  between  a  civilized — a  powerful  nation — 
and  a  small  band  of  Indians,  with  whom  we  were  at   peace;  and  who  then 


16 

dared  to  claim  what  tliej  now  dare  to  defend?  Sir,  between  civilized  nations 
It  could  not  exist  a  moment. 

But  what  do  you  think  the  Government  said  of  this  transaction?  They 
rebuked  their  agent  for  breaking  the  five  chiefs;  they  acknowledged  that  the 
assent  of  the  chiefs  to  the  articles  was  the  effect  of  the  menace.  But  what 
was  said  of  that  menace?  Sir,  1  will  not  rely  on  witnesses:  I  shall  sustain 
myself  only  by  the  record;  and  here  it  is. 

The  acting  Secretary  of  War,  on  the  20tli  May,  1835,  in  reply  to  it, 
says: 

'From  your  report,  it  appears  that  eight  of  the  principal  chiefs  have  signified,  in 
writing,  their  determination  to  abide  by  all  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  of  Payne's 
Landing  and  Fort  Gibson,  and  that  five  of  the  principal  chiefs  refused  to  acknowledge 
them.  The  assent  of  the  chiefs  is  to  be  attributed,  it  would  seem,  to  the  declaration  of 
General  Clinch — that,  if  they  declined  to  remove  voluntarily,  they  would  be  removed 
by  force.  The  President  approves  of  tltt€,declaration,  upon  a  full  consideration  of  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  made." 

And  what  were  those  circumstances?  "  The  Seminoles  had  trilled  sufficiently 
long  with  the  most  solemn  treaty  obligations,  to  wliich  they  had,  in  the  first 
instance,  acceded,  with  a  full  understanding  of  their  character,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  which  they  had  had,  during  three  years,  full  opportunity  to  per- 
ceive and  appreciate." 

And  this  is  not  all,  sir.  Mr.  Thompson,  in  his  letter  of  the  18lh  June,  in  reply, 
states  that  this  declaration  had  been  before  repeated,  under  the  authority  of 
the  Department. 

Such,  sir,  was  the  arrangement  in  open  council,  which,  it  is  alleged,  was 
^HTiade  to  the  inutual  satisfaction  of  the  partiesi^ 

II.  That  the  Government  has  attempted  to  enforce  the  treaty,  in  violation 
f  its  own  construction. 

The  construction  to  which  I  refer  is  contained  in  the  Attorney  General's 
opinion — tiiat  the  Seminoles  were  to  be  removed  in  the  years  1835,  1836, 
and  1837,  instead  of  the  years  stipulated  in  the  treaty. 

In  violation  of  this  construction,  the  Government-4iave  insisted  to  the  Sem- 
inoles that  tiiey  should  all  remove  in  the  year  1835.. 

General  Thompson,  in  his  letter  of  the  28th  October,  1834,  states  that  he 
told  the  Seminoles,  "  1  have  come  from  the  President  to  tell  you" — "  that  you 
must  prepare  to  remove  by  the  time  the  cold  weather  of  the  winter  siiall 
have  passed  away."  The  proposition  was  general.  No  intimation  was 
given  that  the}'  were  to  be  allowed  a  longer  time. 

In  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  subsequent  opinion  of  the  Attor- 
ney General,  the  Secretary  of  War  wrote  to  General  Thompson,  distinctly 
stating  that  the  part  of  the  Seminoles  required  b}'  the  treaty  to  remove  in 
1833,  should  remove  in  1835;  and  the  plain  inference  from  this  letter  was, 
that  the  remainder  should  remove  in  1836-'37.  General  Thompson,  in  his 
letter  of  the  28th  December,  states  that  this  letter  was  read  in  council  to  the 
Seminoles.  But  how  was  it  understood  by  the  Seminoles?  Was  it  made  the 
basis  of  any  proposition?  No,  sir;  the  language  to  them  was  the  same  as 
had  been  held  to  them  in  October.  He  says  that  in  council  "  I  read  your 
speech,  explained  it,  and  enlorced  it  by  such  considerations  as  occurred  to 
me;  of  which,  however,  my  talk  to  them  in  council  in  October  last  may,  in 
substance,  be  considered  a  transcript.  I  repeated  what  I  had  told  them  be- 
fore, that  they  would  be  compelled  by  force  to  remove,  if  they  did  not  do  so 
willingly,"  &c.  In  his  letter  of  the  27th  January  following,  he  states,  "  I 
have  heretofore  (when?)  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  some  reasons 


17 

why  the  Indians  should  be  removed  all  at  the  same  time,  hy  water.''''  And 
finally,  on  ihe  9lh  March,  General  Clinch  states  to  the  adjutant  general,  "In 
all  the  communications- 1  have  had  with  the  chiefs,  I  have  held  out  the  idea, 
that  as  the  three  years  stipulated  in  the  treaty  was  about  expiring,  the  whole 
nation  would  be  required  to  remove  this  spring." 

The  President's  talk  of  the  16th  February,  1835,  is  also  in  accordance 
with  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General — that  the  Seminoles  were  entitled 
to  the  years  1835,-'36,-'37  in  which  to  remove. 

It  appears  from  the  joint  letter  of  Clinch,  Thompson,  and  Harris,  of  the 
24th  April,  1835,  that  this  talk  was  read  in  council  on  the  22d.  And  how 
too  was  this  understood  by  the  Serainolesl  Was  it  made  the  basis  of  any 
proposition?  It  was  not.  This,  sir,  is  the  proper  place  to  notice  the  residue 
of  the  statement  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  25th  May  last — that  "  the 
officers  charged  with  the  arrangement  of  this  affair  [the  arrangement  of  the 
23d  of  April,  1835,]  then  made  an  agreement  with  the  Indians  by  which 
they  were  all  to  be  removed  during  the  succeeding  January.  These  pro- 
ceedings were  approved  by  the  President,  and  the  n)atter  was  considered  as 
definitively  and  satisfactorily  arranged;" — "  and  that  whatever  they  [the  objec- 
tions to  removal]  were,  the  above  agreement  put  an  end  to  them,  and  left  to 
the  Seminoles  but  one  course  to  pursue,  which  was  an  entire  removal  in  Jan- 
uary, 1836." 

The  committee  will  call  to  mind  the  occurrences  in  the  council  of  the  22d 
and  23d  of  April,  when  it  is  alleged  this  agreement  was  made.  It  opened 
with  the  declaration  of  General  Clinch,  that  "  noiv  was  the  time  to  act; 
**  that  he  had  been  sent  here  to  enforce  the  treaty;  that  he  had  warriors 
"  enough  to  do  it,  and  he  would  do  it.  It  was  the  question  n«ic,  whether  they 
*'  would  go  of  their  own  accord,  or  go  by  force."  That  until  morning 
time  was  given  them  to  think  of  it;  that  in  the  morning,  the  names  of  five  op- 
posing chiefs  were  stricken  from  the  council  of  the  nation;  and  that,  under 
this  menace  of  instant  force,  the  eight  chiefs  signed  what  has  been  called 
"  the  arrangement  to  the  mutual  satisfaction  of  both  parties^  This  arrange- 
ment purported  merely  to  be  an  assent  to  the  stipulation  of  the  treaty.  It 
was  silent  as  to  the  time  of  removal.  From  what,  then,  is  the  assent  of  the 
chiefs  to  remove  in  January  inferred?  I  again  refer  to  our  own  story:  "  The 
friendly  chiefs,  whilst  assenting  to  go,  begged  they  might  not  be  hurried  away; 
they  did  not  expect  to  go  this  year;  the  season  was  far  advanced,  and  they 
wanted  time  to  gather  their  crops,  and  settle  their  little  business."  Sir,  they 
begged  for  a  reprieve  from  the  immediate  execution  of  the  sentence,  and  that 
reprieve  was  granted.  The  letter  states:  "  Under  these  circumstances,  we 
deemed  it  our  duty  to  say  to  the  friendly  chiefs,  that  we  would  give  their  peo- 
ple until  the  1st  of  December  to  reap  their  crops,  and  to  complete  their  pre- 
parations; but  that  as  soon  after  that  time  as  we  could  make  ourselves  ready, 
every  Indian  in  Florida  would  be  started  upon  his  journey  to  the  new 
country." 

Such  is  the  agreement  which  it  is  now  insisted  put  an  end  to  the  objec- 
tion of  the  Indians  to  their  removal,  and  left  them  but  one  course  to  adopt — 
an  entire  removal  in  January,  1836.  If  the  proposition  was  ever  made  by 
our  agent  for  a  removal  in  1835,-'6,-'7,  other  than  I  have  stated,  I  have  not 
been  able  to  find  the  record  of  it. 
^  III.  The  Government  have  attempted  to  execute  the  treaty  by  an  act  of 
■(    war,  before  any  act  of  hostility  was  committed  by  the  Seminoles. 

On  examining  the  correspondence,  I  find,  sir,  that  the  menace  of  force  has 
accompanied  all  our  overtures,  even  prior  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 
2 


18 

On  the  21st  of  Februar}',  1834,  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  a  letter  to  Gov- 
ernor Duval,  uses  this  language: 

V  "The  Government  uses  no  compulsion  with  the  Indians.  It  is  left  to  their  free 
choice,  in  the  first  case,  to  go  or  stay;  but  after  that  choice  is  fully  and  freely  made, 
and  they  have  obligated  themselves  to  remove^  the  Government  will  employ  the  neces- 
sary measures  to  enforce  their  removal."    .,-' ' 

In  the  council  of  the  23d  of  April,  the  Seminoles  were  told,  "  You  must  go 
to  the  west;    your  father  the  President  will  compel  you  to  go." 

The  talk  of  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  22d  of  November,  1834,  says, 
"  The  President  has  directed  a  body  of  soldiers  to  be  sent  into  your  country." 

This  letter  was  preceded  by  General  Thompson's  letter,  (of  the  28ih  Oc- 
tober,) saying,  that  "  a  full  view  of  all  the  circumstances  leaves  me  without 
doubt  that  these  deluded  people  are  determined  to  resist  the  execution 
of  the  treaty." 

On  the  24th  November,  1834,  orders  were  given  to  march  troops  to  Forts 
r  Brooke  and  King,  and  for  General  Clinch  to  co-operate  with  them. 
/  On  the  28th  December,  General  Thompson   says,  that   at  the   council  of 

the  26th,   "  I  repeated  what  I  had  told  them  before,  that  they  would  be  com- 
pelled by  force  to  remove,  should  they  not  do  so  willingly." 

On  the  27th  of  January,  1835,  General  Thompson  suggested  to  the  De- 
partment that  the  military  force  in  Florida  was  insufficient. 

In  the  President's  talk  of  the  16th  February,  1835,  the  Indians  were  told, 
"  I  have  ordered  a  large  military  force  sent  among  you,  &c.  &c.;  listen  to 
the  voice  of  friendship,  you  will  go  quietly;  but  should  you  listen  to  bad 
birds  that  are  flying  about  you,  and  refuse  to  remove,  I  have  then  directed  the 
commanding  officer  to  remove  you  by  force.     This  will  be  done,"  &c. 

On  the  8th  March,  Governor  Eaton  requested  General  Clinch  to  delay  the 
execution  of  the  orders  until  he  should  receive  an  answer  to  his  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  War  of  that  date. 

On  the  26th  March,  the  Attorney  General  gave  his  opinion;  and  on  the 
14th  April,  liie  Secretary  of  War  wrote  to  General  Clinch,  that  "if  they 
(the  Seminoles)  all  be  willing  to  remove  this  year,  it  will  certainly  be  better 
to  remove  them;  but,  in  that  case,  let  a  written  agreement  be  drawn  up,  stat- 
ing the  reasons  of  the  delay,  their  entire  readiness  to  remove  by  the  time, 
and  go  in  a  body,  and  by  such  route  as  you  and  General  Thompson  shall 
think  best  for  them  and  most  economical  to  the  Government;  but  if  they  are 
opposed  to  this,  and  will  generally  agree  quietly  to  remove  by  the  1st  of  March, 
or  as  soon  as  arrangements  can  be  made,  they  may  be  suffered  to  remain  until 
that  time.  Should  the  Seminoles,  however,  peremptorily  decline  to  pledge 
themselves  peaceably  to  remove  next  season,  you  will  then  proceed  to  carry 
into  effect  the  instructions  heretofore  given."  \ 

This  order  produced  the  menace  of  Clinch,  in  the  council  of  the  22d  of 
April,  "  that  he  had  warriors  enough,"  &c.  «fcc. 

On  the  20lh  May,  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  reply  to  their  joint  letter  of 
the  24lh,  wrote  to  Thompson,  Clinch,  and  Harris,  (referring  to  the  letter 
above,  of  the  14th  April,)  "  If,  as  stated  in  that  letter,  the  Indians  will  gene- 
rally agree  quietly  to  remove  by  the  time  you  have  designated,  and  will  sig- 
nify their  agreement  in  writing  in  the  manner  therein  pointed  out,  no  objections 
will  be  made  to  the  postponement.  But  the  Indians  must  understand  that 
their  removal  will  be  enforced  in  conformity  with  the  treaty." , 

C  About  the  3d  June,  Powell,  (Oseola,)  one  of  the  most  bold,  daring,  and 
Jntrepid   chiefs    in  his    nation,    on  account  of  his  insolence,    was    put    in 


19 

irons — put  an  Indian  chief  in  irons!  On  his  release,  he  appeared  friend- 
ly— who  that  knows  the  Indian  character  could  rely  on  such  appearance?       ; 

The  next  unfortunate  occurrence  was  on  the  18th  June,  when  seven  white 
men,  meeting  five  Indians,  took  away  their  rifles,  flogged  four  of  them  with 
cowhides,  and,  otiier  Indians  coming  to  their  relief,  a  fight  ensued,  in  which 
three  white  men  were  wounded  and  one  Indian  was  killed.  Our  officer 
demanded  the  Indian  aggressors;  and,  what  is  more  extraordinary,  they 
were  delivered  up. 

On  the  11th  August,  the  Seminoles  killed  a  soldier,  while  carrying  the 
mail,  in  retaliation  for  the  Indian  killed  by  the  whites,  and  declared  themselves 
satisfied.  This  was  regarded  in  its  proper  light  by  our  officer — as  a  mere  act 
tif  retaliation. 

On  the  30th  of  November,  the  Seminoles  killed  one  of  their  chiefs,  who 
had  been  friendly  to  their  emigration;  and  immediately  all  the  friendly  Indi- 
ans^ to  the  number  of  four  or  five  hundred,  fled  to  Fort  Brooke  for  protec- 
tion. \  This  act  was  deemed  decisive  that  the  Indians  would  resist  their  re- 
moval by  force.  It  was  now,  sir,  no  longer  a  question  of  menace.  It  was  a 
question  of  war — of  the  employing  a  military  force  to  execute  a  treaty*  1 
characterize  the  aict  by  the  term  applied  to  it  by  General  Eaton  in  advance. 
In  his  letter  of  the  8th  of  March,  he  says,  in  reference  to  the  execution  of  the 
treaty;-"  the  employing  a  military  force  will  be  an  act  of  war,  and,"  further, 
"  the  Indians  will  embody  and  fight  in  their  defence.''^ 

Our  military  force,  consisting  of  twelve  companies,  immediately  concen- 
trated; and,  on  the  23d,  a  corps  of  two  hundred  men  attempted  to  march 
through  what  might  then  be  called  the  enemi/^s  country^  Thus,  we  had  march- 
ed a  military  force  into  their  country,  for  the  purpose,  repeatedly  declared 
to  the  Seminoles,  of  removing  them  by  force;  and  thus  was  the  act  of  war 
completed  before  a  single  hostile  act  was  committed  by  the  Seminoles.  The 
Seminoles,  fulfilling  the  prediction  of  General  Eaton,  "embodied  and  fought 
in  their  (/e/cnce;"  and  the  fate  of  the  unfortunate  Dade  was  told  by  only 
three  of  his  men.  Here,  sir,  I  leave  the  war  aTjts  commencement.  How 
the  battle  has  fared  since,  1  leave  to  others  to  say^ 

It  is  proper,  however,  and  it  is  just,  to  say,  that  the  administration  here 
must  necessarily  judge  of  the  state  of  things  in  Florida  through  the  represent- 
ations of  their  agents  on  the  spot;  that,  from  the  first  question  of  the  execution 
of  the  treaty,  all  our  officers  and  agents  there  strongly  recommended  the  exe- 
cution of  the  treat}'  by  a  military  force;  and,  so  far  as  it  was  intended  to  pro- 
duce an  eflfect  as  a  menace,  though  a  policy  of  a  doubtful  character,  it  might, 
in  a  just  cause,  be  excused,  if  not  justified.  But,  sir,  if  the  question  I  have 
asked.  Is  our  quarrel  just?  be  answered  in  the  negative,  we  must  stand  as 
the  aggressors,  without  cause  and  without  justification. 

But,  sir,  take  it  for  granted  that  the  treaty  was  obligatory,  and  that  we  had 
only  insisted  on  its  just  execution;  the  question  then  arises,  has  the  Exec- 
utive the  power  to  execute  a  treaty  by  an  act  of  war?  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  but  by  such 
means,  and  by  such  only,  as  the  constitution  or  the  laws  have  provided.  To 
Congress  it  belongs  to  make  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  the  execution 
of  the  special  grants  conferred  upon  Congress,  and  of  all  other  powers  vested  by 
the  constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  Depart- 
ment or  officer  thereof.  The  execution  of  a  treaty  by  force,  or  attempting 
to  obtain  satisfaction  by  force,  is  virtually  an  act  of  war;  and  this  power  is 
vested  in  Congress  alone. 

In  regard  to  our  own  citizens,  treaties  are  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 


20 

and  are  executed  as  such;  but,  as  between  the  parties,  they  are  naatters  of  com- 
pact, in  which  each  part}'  judges  for  itself,  and  seeks  its  remedies  under  the 
laws  of  nations;  and  the  exclusive  right  which  we  have  assumed  to  judge  for 
both  parties  defines  our  power,  but  not  our  right.  This,  however,  cannot 
change  the  character  of  treaties  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  reduce  them  from 
compacts  to  laws. 

The  action  of  the  Executive,  in  the  cases  of  the  Seminoles  and  the  Creeks, 
thougli  directly  opposite,  is  within  the  same  principle.  In  the  case  of  the 
Seminoles,  an  attempt  was  made  to  execute  a  treaty  by  an  act  of  war.  In 
the  case  of  the  Creeks,  the  attempt  is  to  violate  a  treaty  by  an  act  of  the 
same  character. 

I  forbear,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  comment  on  a  variety  of  minor  considerations 
which  may  have  had  an  influence  in  favor  of  or  against  the  voluntary  removal 
of  the  Seminoles,  or  in  adding  to  the  excitement  produced  by  the  principal 
facts  in  the  case — the  desire  of  the  whites  to  retain  or  to  purchase  their 
slaves,  and  to  obtain  their  lands  per  fas  aut  nefas,  operating  on  the  one  hand 
to  obstruct  their  removal,  and  on  the  other  to  induce  their  immediate 
removal  by  force. 

^-What,  Mr.  Chairman,  may  be,  if  not  the  probable,  the  possible  effect  of  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment  of  the  committee?  It  will  be  considered  by  the 
Executive  as  aaauthority,  as  a  warrant,  for  the  removal  of  the  whole  Creek 
nation  by  force-  Is  there  not  danger  that  it  may  excite  the  whole  nation,  or 
a  large  portion,  to  make  common  cause  with  the  Seminoles?  They  will  take 
courage  from  their  success.  They  will,  to  use  the  language  of  General 
Eaton,  "  take  up  the  tomahawk  in  despair."  It  may  be  a  war  to  them  of  ex- 
termination, and  to  us  of  great  peril.  What  are  your  present  relations  with 
the  Cherokees — a  tribe  which,  since  your  first  treaty  with  them,  has  never 
taken  the  scalp  of  a  white  man — a  tribe  which  has  borne  and  forborne?  But, 
sir,  have  you  done  any  thing  of  late  calculated  to  prolong  that  forbearance? 
Sir,  I  learn  from  a  publication  in  the  Globe,  that  we  have  lately  made  a  treaty 
with  them,  by  which  we  have  fulfilled  our  longing  desires  of  acquiring  a  cession 
of  all  their  lands.  I  learn,  also,  from  other  sources,  that  this  treaty  has  been 
made  with  one-tenth  of  the  tribe  against  the  remonstrance  of  the  remainder. 
What  state  of  feeling  will  grow  out  of  this,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  I  hope, 
sir,  they  will  acquiesce  in  the  treaty,  if  not  in  its  justice — fully  believing 
that,  as  circumstanced,  their  happiness  will  be  promoted  by  their  removal. 
But,  sir,  they  will  judge  for  themselves.  The  force  of  the  Indians  east  of 
the  Mississippi  is  competent  to  much  mischief.  In  a  war,  which  may  be- 
come a  war  of  extermination,  is  it  wise  to  provoke  new  enemies  to  "  raise 
the  tomahawk  in  despair?"^  You  may  probably  rate  the  force  of  the  Semi- 
noles at  1,500;  the  Creeks  at  3,500;  the  Cherokees  at  3,000;  the  Choctaws 
and  Chickasaws,  and  others  that  are  vagrant  remnants  of  tribes,  at  2,000 
more — a  force  of  10,000  warriors.  The  modern  Indian  wars  of  the  South 
are  not  of  the  character  of  those  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,  of  for- 
mer days.  Then,  on  the  attack,  the  settlers  flew  to  the  rescue;  now,  sir, 
the  flight  is  in  any  other  direction.  Causes  over  which  individuals,  perhaps, 
have  no  control,  have  given  an  entire  diflerent  character  to  our  defence.  And 
is  there  no  danger  that  an  Indian  war  ma}'  connect  itself  with  a  war  of  ano- 
ther character?  Sir,  those  who  are  the  most  interested  will  judge  in  what 
scale  to  place  these  apprehensions.  I  trust  in  God  they  may  never  become 
realities. 

But,  sir,  what  is  proposed  to  be  done  with  the  Indians?  To  remove  them 
with  all  their  hostile  feelings — to  remove  J^^ijapec?  Indians  to  the  west  of  Mis- 


2J 

souri  and  Arkansas,  and  plant  thena  there!  What  have  you  gained,  but  to 
change  the  scene,  and  to  increase  your  danger?  You  place  them  there  to  ex- 
cite the  surrounding  tribes  to  war  on  your  whole  western  frontier — tribes  who 
can  bring  into  the  battle  30,000  warriors,  and  sustain  them,  too.  They  can 
choose  their  point  of  attack,  and  retreat  at  pleasure,  where  you  cannot  follow, 
to  return  to  the  attack  in  sonne  other  quarter — tribes,  too,  which  can  be  sup- 
plied with  arms  by  a  neighboring  nation,  which  is  not,  perhaps,  now  in  the 
best  state  of  feelings  towards  you.  Grant,  sir,  that  these  are  mere  possible 
dangers;  yet  should  we  not  be  put  on  our  guard  even  against  remote  contin- 
gencies'? Why  should  we  add  further  cause  for  increasing  the  hostilities  which 
now  exist?  Why  continue  even  these  hostilities,  if  they  can  be  avoided?  Must 
we  continue  the  Seminole  war  for  another  campaign?  What  new  laurels  are  to 
be  won?  It  is  asked,  is  it  practicable  to  end  the  war  without  further  slaugh- 
ter? Sir,  on  this  subject  I  rely  entirely  on  the  opinion  of  those  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  character  of  the  southern  Indians  than  myself;  and,  from 
the  opinions  of  those  entitled  to  confidence,  I  am  satisfied  that  it  is  practica- 
ble, and  that  while  our  army  is  in  summer  quarters,  the  war  might  be  ended. 
Sir,  the  experiment  is  worth  the  attempt;  if  we  fail,  nothing  is  lost. 

I  cannot  but  recur  to  the  period  when  the  system  of  removal  commenced; 
when  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Bell)  introduced  the  bill  of  1830. 
Predictions  were  then  made,  which  were  treated  as  impossibilities;  but,  sir, 
they  will  soon  be  a  part  of  our  recorded  history. 


APPENDIX. 


Tallahassee,  A/arch  8,  1835. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  letter, with  its'enclosures,  relative  to  removing  (he 
Seminole  Indians,  under  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1832,  but  which  was 
not  ratified  until  1834.  I  pray  you,  does  not  this  circumstance  raise  a  doubt 
whether,  by  strict  rule,  the  treaty  can  be  considered  valid  and  binding?  Our 
Indian  compacts  must  be  construed,  and  be  controlled,  by  the  rules  which 
civilized  people  practise;  because,  in  all  our  actions  with  them,  we  have  put 
the  treaty-making  machinery  in  operation  precisely  in  (he  same  way,  and  to 
the  same  extent,  (hat  it  is  employed  with  the  civilized  Powers  of  Europe.  The 
rule  practised  upon  by  us  has  been,  and  is,  that  the  ratification  shall  take  place 
within  either  an  agreed  time  or  in  a  reasonable  time. 

When  Florida  was  ceded,  in  1819,  the  Cortes  failed  to  exchange  ratifica- 
tions within  the  prescribed  time,  and  afterwards,  at  a  subsequent  session,  it  was 
assented  to  by  the  Spanish  Cortes.  The  sense  of  this  Government  was, 
that  the  first  ratification  made  by  (he  Senate  was  inoperative;  and  again  the 
subject  wa«  submitted,  by  Mr.  Monroe,  for  the  ac(ion  and  approval  of  the 
Senate.  This  appears  to  me  to  be  a  precedent  which  runs  parallel  with  this 
Indian  compact.  It  says,  one-third  shall  remove  (he  first  year,  viz:  as  early  as 
practicable  in  1833,  and  one-third  in  the  next,  and  the  next,  1834  and  '35.  Now, 
until  1834,  when  the  ratification  took  place,  the  treaty  was  a  dead  letter.  It 
is  in  their  power  now  to  plead  and  to  say,  we  were  ready  in  1833  and  '34,  and, 
hearing  nothing  of  your  determination,  we  had  a  right  to  suppose  that  you  did 
not  mean  to  stand  by  the  treaty,  and  accordingly  our  minds  have  changed. 
With  civilized  nations,  I  think  the  plea  would  be  available;  and,  if  so,  the  In- 
dian should  have  the  benefit  of  it. 

Were  these  people  willing  voluntarily  to  remove,  (though  such  seems  not 
to  be  the  case,)  the  whole  difliculty  would  be  cured,  and  no  evil  could  arise. 
But  as  military  force  is  about  to  be  resorted  to,  it  is  material  that  the  Govern- 


22 

ment,  before  making  such  appeal,  be  satisfied  tiiat  right  and  justice  are  on  their 
side;  and  that  they  are  not  engaged  in  the  execution  of  a  treaty  which,  if  void, 
is  no  part  of  the  law  of  the  land.  I  feel  so  strongly  the  force  of  these  objec- 
tions, and  am  so  desirous  that  General  Jackson  shall  avoid  every  thing  of  sup- 
posed error,  that  I  shall  today,  unauthorized  as  I  am,  write  to  General 
Clinch,  and  request  him  not  to  act  with  force^  until  he  shall  hear  again  from 
you.  This  he  may  probably  do;  and  hence  the  propriety  of  your  considering 
my  suggestion,  and  advising  him  as  early  as  possible. 

Should  you  at  Washington,  who  have  books  to  resort  to,  to  solve  the  doubt 
I  have  mentioned,  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  tenable,  why  then  the 
subject  of  the  removal,  and  the  manner  of  it,  are  unnecessary  to  be  examined. 
An  attempt  must  then  be  made  to  go  into  some  new  negotiation.  If  there  be 
nothing  in  the  proffered  objections,  then  the  best  mode  of  starting  them  away 
recurs. 

The  employing  a  military  force  will  be  an  act  of  war,  and  the  Indians  will 
embody  and  fight  in  their  defence.  In  this  event,  you  will  want  such  an  im- 
posing force  as  shall  overawe  resistance.  The  few  companies  you  have  ordered 
will  not  produce  this  result.  They  will  serve  but  to  begin  the  fight,  and 
to  awaken  angry  feelings;  so  that,  in  the  sequel,  the  militia  will  have  to  be 
called,  which  will  end  in  the  butchery  of  these  miserable  people.  Send  a 
strong  imposing  regular  force,  which  can  be  commanded  and  prevented  from 
doing  more  than  actually  is  needful  to  be  done;  and  then  that  force,  judi- 
ciously acting  and  forbearing,  may  do  much.  But  send  only  a  handful  of  men, 
and  difficulties  will  come  upon  you. 

The  next  thing  will  be  to  have  suitable  transports,  of  seven  or  eight  feet 
draught,  lying  at  Tampa  Bay,  well  provisioned,  to  receive  them;  for,  sure  as 
you  seek  a  passage  over  land,  they  will  desert  into  swamps,  and  elude  your 
pursuits.  They  are  afraid  to  go  by  land.  Bad  men  will  raise  up  fiilse  accounts, 
arrest  and  throw  them  in  jail,  whereby  to  enfi)rce  payment.  The  fate  of  their 
chief,  Blunt,  last  year  at  New  Orleans,  they  fear  will  be  theirs-  Taking  them 
by  water  to  the  Mississippi  river,  and  there  placing  them  in  boats,  with  posi- 
tive orders  not  to  land  or  stop  at  any  town  or  city,  will  prevent  this  disturb- 
ance to  them.  In  three  or  four  days  the  voyage  can  be  made  from  Tampa 
Bay  to  the  Balize,  at  a  much  reduced  cost  to  what  a  land  travel  northwardly 
would  amount  to. 

There  is  another  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  these  people,  and  it  is  this:  A 
separate  tract  out  of  the  Creek  lands  has  been  set  apart  for  their  homes.  There 
is  a  ratified  treaty  in  your  office,  made  by  General  Stokes,  Ellsworth,  and 
Schermerhorn,  with  the  Creeks,  which  authorizes  the  Seminole  location.  While 
negotiating  with  the  Indians  last  year,  at  Washington,  I  understood  that  the 
Creeks  discovered  this  act,  and  had  sent  word  to  the  Seminole  bands,  that, 
while  they  were  willing  to  receive  them  in  their  limits  as  a  portion  of  their 
nation,  they  would  not  suffer  them  to  enjoy  any  separate  allotment  of  their  soil. 
This,  too,  has  intimidated  them,  and,  I  dare  say,  is  the  essential  cause  of  their 
reluctance  to  go  off  To  cure  this,  either  the  Creeks  west  should  be  gotten  to 
say  that  the  allotment  made  shall  be  for  the  exclusive  separate  use  of  the 
Florida  Indians;  or  the  latter  should  be  prevailed  upon,  for  some  adequate 
compensation,  to  agree  to  go  and  amalgamate  with  the  tJreeks.  Another  mode 
of  prevailing  on  these  people  to  remove,  would  be,  to  give  orders  to  the  troops 
to  prevent  them  from  raising  corn  this  year:  this  is  almost  as  severe  a  remedy 
as  employing  your  bayonets.  But  the  effect  will  be,  that,  towards  autumn, 
their  necessities  will  compel  them  to  depart-LTo  go  or  starve,  would  then  be 
the  question. 

General  Thompson  was  here  a  few  days  since,  and  found  a  letter  for  him 
from  the  Department.  He  should  not  be  addressed  here,  but  at  the  Semi- 
nole agency,  distant  from  this  place,  I  believe,  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles- 

This  Indian  question  of  removal  is  one  that  should  be  managed  with  great 
caution  and  care,  that  the  enemies  in  Congress,  ever  ready  to  find  fault,  may 
have  no  just  and  tenable  ground  on  which  to  rest  their  rumors.  Tread  cau- 
tiously, then.  The  people  here  want  the  lands  on  which  they  reside,  and  they 
will  urge  a  removal, /as  aut  nefas;  and  the  Big  Swamp,  which  in  the  treaty  is 


23 

declared  to  be  the  first  of  their  country  to  be  vacated,  is  of  high  repute,  and 
it  is  that  on  which  the  eyes  of  speculators  are]  fixed-  But  whether  they  shall 
have  it  this  year  or  the  next,  or  the  next  thereafter,  is  of  less  importance  to  the 
country,  than  that  any  thing  shall  be  done  calculated  (o  impair  the  character 
of  the  Government  for  justice,  and  for  equitable  and  fair  dealing.  Whence 
the  necessity  of  any  speedy  removal?  Presently,  if  left  alone,  these  Indians 
will  go  of  their  own  accordj  because  they  cannot  avoid  it.  To  stay,  is  to  starve; 
and  nature  and  its  demands  will  soon  tell  them  more,  and  better, and  more 
convincing  things  on  this  subject,  than  you  and  the  President  can  write. 
Then  they  will  go,  and  go  without  any  interruption  to  the  quiet  and  harmony 
of  the  country.  Now,  with  all  your  efforts,  and  the  army  to  aid  you,  they 
could  not  be  carried  oft'  and  gotten  to  their  western  homes  before  June  or 
July.  Then,  no  crop  could  be  raised,  and  for  two  years  they  will  be  without 
provisions.  The  preferred  and  preferable  course,  I  think,  will  be  to  send 
amongst  them  active  and  intelligent  men  to  court  them  to  what  is  right,  in 
the  hope  that,  during  the  year,  their  minds  may  be  so  prepared  as  to  be  in- 
duced to  depart  during  November;  at  least,  that  they  may  reach  their  homes 
in  time  to  raise  corn  the  succeeding  year.  On  the  whole,  to  conclude  a  tiresome 
letter,  I  ofter  this  advice:  avoid  the  exercise  oi  force  as  long  as  possible;  and 
let  it  be  the  only,  the  last  sad  alternative;  and  then  let  not,  by  any  means,  the 
militia  be  applied  to — they  will  breed  misdiief- 

With  great  respect, 

J.  H.  EATON. 
Lewis  Cass,  Secretary  of  War. 


Tallahassee,  March  8,  1835. 

Sir:  I  have  received  from  the  Secretary  of  War  a  letter  asking  me  to 
suggest  t(»  him  any  views  I  might  entertain  as  to  the  removal  of  the  Seminole 
Indians.  Enclosed  in  his  communication  was  a  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by 
you  to  the  adjutant  general,  dated  22d  January,  1835;  a  reply  to  it  by  the 
Secretary,  of  the  16th  February;  with  a  talk  from  the  President,  also  dated  16th 
February.  In  reply,  I  have  offered  my  opinions  freely  and  frankly;  and, 
amongst  other  things  suggested,  whether  the  treaty  of  1832  be  not  void,  for 
want  of  timely  ratification.  If  this  be  so,  it  will  be  unfortunate  that  the  mili- 
tary force  of  the  country  be  actively  employed. 

In  my  letter  I  have  said,  "by  the  next  mail  (unauthorized)  I  shall  write  to 
General  Clinch,  and  suggest  to  him  not  to  employ  force  towards  the  removal, 
until  he  shall  again  hear  from  you.  He  may,  perhaps,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances, accord  to  my  request;  and  hence  the  necessity  of  your  speedily  inform- 
ing him  of  the  course  he  shall  pursue."  If,  under  the  orders  given,  you  shall 
think  you  can  practise  forbearance  until  the  Secretary  is  again  heard  from,  I 
shall  be  glad;  because  my  opinion  is,  there  is  greater  safety  in  the  course.  But 
of  this  you  alone  are  to  judge,  under  the  responsibility  of  the  orders  which  have 
been  forwarded  to  you. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  H.  EATON. 
To  General  D.  L.  Clinch. 


UNIV.  OP  CALIF.  LIBRARY,  LOS  AITGELBS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


m 

MAR  3 119" 


UfR20  m 

4WKMAYt8l994 
JUtll5199|t 

50m-7,'69(N296s4) — C-120 


5  ■^^■ 


3   1158  00663  61  ( 


'^"z:  .  ■tK-.<v*'K.i- 


